Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22284347›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in cell biology2012

Quantitative analysis of gradient sensing: towards building predictive models of chemotaxis in cancer.

Shannon K Hughes-Alford, Douglas A Lauffenburger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in cell biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Metastasis review: from bench to bedside.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2014
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shannon K Hughes-AlfordDepartment of Biological Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.
Douglas A Lauffenburger
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

Tumor Cell Networks CenterU54CA112967 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI LAUFFENBURGER, DOUGLAS A · 2004 to 2015
$26.2M
Spatial Segregation of Cell Functioning During MotilityR01GM069668 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WELLS, ALAN · 2004 to 2019
$4.7M
Computational Modeling of Cell Migration in 3D MatricesR01GM081336 · NIGMS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI LAUFFENBURGER, DOUGLAS A · 2008 to 2011
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA112967NCI NIH HHS U54-CA112967NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM069668NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM081336NIGMS NIH HHS R01-GM081336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemotaxis of tumor cells in response to a gradient of extracellular ligand is an important step in cancer metastasis. The heterogeneity of chemotactic responses in cancer has not been widely addressed by experimental or mathematical modeling techniques. However, recent advancements in chemoattractant presentation, fluorescent-based signaling probes, and phenotypic analysis paradigms provide rich sources for building data-driven relational models that describe tumor cell chemotaxis in response to a wide variety of stimuli. Here we present gradient sensing, and the resulting chemotactic behavior, in a 'cue-signal-response' framework and suggest methods for utilizing recently reported experimental methods in data-driven modeling ventures.

Indexed as

ChemotaxisModels, BiologicalSignal TransductionCell CommunicationChemotactic FactorsHumansLigandsNeoplasmsChemotactic FactorsLigands

Identifiers

PMID22284347
PMCPMC3320675
OpenAlexW2025328496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.